1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 24, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a rocketing vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) around 17:30 on March 24, 2018; and (b) proceeded in the direction of straight-down at the Maero Station Intersection as the airport of Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul; (c) the Plaintiff conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle covered by the Defendant’s comprehensive motor vehicle insurance (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff suffered injury to salt, tension, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 18 and 24, Gap evidence No. 1's video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, since the accident of this case occurred in violation of the signal by the defendant's driver, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant's vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

B. However, in full view of the following: (a) as to whether the Defendant’s liability is limited or not, the Plaintiff’s vehicle still did not have access to the intersection even after the Plaintiff’s vehicle turned on a straight straight signal prior to the passage of the intersection; (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection at the time when the vehicle stops in front of the crosswalk prior to the said intersection; and (c) it appears that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding toward the straight straight line in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle is going into the intersection at the time of the passage of the vehicle stop line prior to the said intersection; and (d) it is recognized that the direct straight signal was changed to a yellow signal at the time of the passage of the crosswalk prior to the said intersection (refer to the attached photo). According to the above recognition facts, even if the Plaintiff could have discovered the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the passage of the crosswalk prior to the said intersection, but did not discover or have found the said vehicle due to neglect to perform the duty of front and thereby, the said vehicle is going through the intersection.